Category Archives: politics

Judge Rules Injunction against SB 1070

5 Replies

Sigh…

I shouldn’t have been surprised. And yet I was when around lunch time I opened the Drudge Report to discover that Federal Judge Susan Bolton had indeed issued an injunction against AZ’s SB 1070 that essentially guts it of any power…  That is to say, she disallowed the part where officers are required/allowed to determine the status of any whom they arrest in conjunction with another crime, should they have sufficient justification to think they might be here illegally.

Her argument? It would inconvenience some of those legally here if they didn’t have their documentation with them, and had to wait around while officers checked on their status after being arrested. 

Secondly, she claimed federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement  resources would be completely overwhelmed, unable to handle the vast numbers of inquiries that were sure to come their way, and leaving their other responsibilities unattended to because of the diversion of their workers.

 Thirdly, she ruled that while Arizona’s law mirror’s federal law, it nevertheless pre-empts it because Arizona has altered the penalties to be levied on those found guilty.  That’s true. Arizona did alter the penalties — SB 1070 penalties are reduced from what the federal law stipulates. More to the point, though, is the fact that this whole part of her argument is a distortion. It’s not that our law would pre-empt federal law, but that it would pre-empt the federal government’s policy regarding that law.  That is, their policy of not enforcing it.

Heather MacDonald at NRO’s The Corner gives a brief, incisive (some say biting) critique of the ruling HERE (“What Judge Bolton’s Injunction Doesn’t Say”).

Also at NRO, Andy McCarthy gives his take, highlighting Bolton’s misapplication of the ruling in a previous court case, and the fact she’s ignored other case precedents that apply directly. One of which, Plyler v. Doe (1982), went to the Supreme Court, which ruled, “Despite the exclusive federal control of this Nation’s borders, we cannot conclude that the States are without power to deter the influx of persons entering the United States against federal law, and whose numbers might have a discernible impact on traditional state concerns. [Emphasis added.]” You can read his entire review HERE.

Meanwhile, the busload of SEIU people who came from LA to protest the law are now celebrating, as are the locals who were already threatening to block government buildings in Phoenix and dare authorities to ask about their immigration status. Then there were the people in Mexico City, about 100 of them hanging out near the US Embassy cheering and chanting,  “Migrants, hang on, the people are rising up!”  What in the world is that supposed to mean?

Sigh.

Turtle Excluders Pre-Empt Federal Law

2 Replies

Last week I was reading an article in the New York Times about the effects of oil on marine life, particularly the rise of sea turtle deaths in the gulf off the coast of Mississippi.  When the rate of turtle deaths suddenly spiked this summer, everyone’s first thought was to blame it on the gushing BP oil well. Instead, autopsies soon revealed that the turtles did not die from oil poisoning, but from being caught in shrimpers’ nets and drowned.

This conclusion was supported by the additional observation that the sudden spike in sea turtle deaths occurred three days after the opening of the Mississippi shrimping season. Federal law requires shrimpers to have special “turtle excluder” devices on their nets which provide the turtles with a way of escape so they won’t drown. Those who fish by skimming with nets don’t have the excluders but are limited in how long they can skim, such limitation being less than the length of time it would take a turtle caught in the skimming net to drown. Before the shrimping season began, all the operators’ boats and gear were inspected and found to be in order.

Nevertheless, the number of turtle deaths jumped dramatically almost as soon as the season opened; since then, with the waters having been closed to shrimpers on account of the oil spill, the turtle deaths have  fallen off. Which leads experts to the inevitable conclusion that “fisheries interaction” was the cause of the deaths. With the oil spill diverting most of the Coast Guard and other inspectors, the shrimpers most likely took advantage of their freedom and  just disabled their excluders…

And then in the middle of all this interesting talk of turtles and Mississippi, the author switches venues to note that the excluder devices are quite a contentious subject in Louisiana. So contentious, in fact, “that Louisiana law has long forbidden its wildlife and fisheries agents to enforce federal regulations on the devices.”

And that stopped me in my tracks (figuratively, anyway)

Did I read that right??! Louisiana law has long forbidden its W&F agents to enforce federal regulations…? That’s what it said, going on to add that recently Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal vetoed legislation that would lift that ban in light of the  “challenges and issues currently facing our fishermen.”

So, apparently  Louisiana can have a law forbidding state personnel to enforce a federal law and no one says a thing, but Arizona institutes a law which requires its personnel to enforce a federal law and that’s considered pre-emptive, irresponsible and misguided…. Hmmm.

Having noted that, the author returns to turtles and shrimpers, the latter having violated the bans that had closed various waters to fishing because of the spill. Over 20,000 pounds of shrimp were seized by agents in Louisiana and 350 citatons issued to those who dared fish where they shouldn’t. But suddenly the enforcement of federal laws seems more arbitrary and whimsical than ever to me…

If you want to read the NY Times article Animal Autopsies in Gulf Yield a Mystery, it’s HERE.

SB1070 Trumps Federal Law?

7 Replies

That’s the gist of the lawsuit pressed by the US Department of Justice against Arizona’s new law SB 1070.  Oddly, after all the talk of how the new law was racist and would encourage, even require racism, there is no talk at all of racism in the Federal suit against our state. Instead, the objection is that Arizona’s law, which mirrors the federal law already on the books, somehow attempts to trump that law, or, is “pre-empted” by it.

On Sunday, July 11, Attorney General Eric Holder was on Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer and the conversation was quite … telling.

“The solution that the Arizona Legislature came up is inconsistent with our Federal Constitution,” say Holder in that interview. And yet, the law is the same as the law already on the books. Perhaps, but, according to Holder, “It is the responsibility of the federal government to decide immigration policy…”

But… at issue is the fact that there is a federal law that makes it illegal to cross our borders without going through proper channels and the feds simply are not enforcing the law drawn and passed by our Congress. Is that the “policy” then? To not enforce the law of the land?

Holder continues:

“We have a an immigration policy that takes in a whole variety of things. International relations, national security concerns, and it is the responsibility of the federal government as opposed to states on a patchwork basis to decide exactly what it is our policy should be with respect to immigration.”

I am impressed by the convolution of  his answer, little of which has to do with the obvious issue… and yet says much about the way the Constitution and our system of government is under attack today.

Schieffer though, ignores this point and hurries on to the racial issue, saying — erroneously — that SB 1070 allows a policeman to stop someone he thinks might be an illegal. No, the police can’t just stop whomever. The person or persons have to be breaking some other law for the police to stop them and if in the course of dealing with that the officer has reasonable justification in suspecting the person might be here illegally, he has the right to ask them to show their documentation.

To his credit, Schieffer does ask, given his  — and many other people’s (note all the wailing done about how people going out to the ice cream store with their kids are going to get stopped and harassed because of this law) erroneous assumption, why the Department of Justice didn’t file on the basis of racial profiling. Holder’s response was classic. “Well we wanted to go with what we thought was our strongest initial argument.” LOL. Because the racist argument holds no water, they had to go with the pre-emption thing.

“Are you saying states have no responsibility in enforcing immigration,” Schieffer asked, “that that’s solely the responsibility of the Federal government?”

And Holder says that “states and locals can certainly help, but can’t pass laws inconsistent with or do things that contravene federal policy when it comes to the enforcement of our immigration laws.”

In other words, when the federal government’s policy is not to enforce the federal, congress-generated immigration laws, he doesn’t think states should be able to, either. And furthermore, “if you look at the guts of SB 1070, there are a whole variety of things that are inconsistent…” not with federal law but… “with what we have decided to do as a federal government…”

What WE have decided to do as a federal government. Whoa! No rule of law there. Congress? Who are they? We’re in power now and we’ll do what we please.

Which is exactly how the Ruling Class, as mentioned in the article in The American Spectator I linked to last week does it. They think it’s their right. Their duty. They don’t believe in representative government. They believe only they have the intelligence and ability to decide what’s right, not a bunch of yahoos who aren’t rich, aren’t Ivy league educated, don’t have liberalism’s enlightened views and worst of all, actually believe in God and the Bible.

It’s just like having King George again!

… And on that subject, I have now read the American Spectator article American’s Ruling Class — and the Perils of Revolution in entirety. Iit printed out to 22 pages, nevertheless I highly recommend everyone read it. Last week Rush Limbaugh dubbed it an “important” article and he rarely calls anything like that important. But he’s right. It is. A few quotes won’t do it.

As I read it I saw over and over how right the author Angelo Codevilla) was. There IS a ruling class, and they DO disrespect the “country” class. Can’t hardly even understand us. Don’t want, to, either, because to them we’re just a bunch of Yahoos. It’s why they DESPISE Sarah Palin. She’s not part of the elite. It explains the business with SP1070. And the actions not only of our current administration, but also of the Washington DC Republicans. It’s the new aristocracy, our very own lords and ladies, dukes and duchesses, counts and countesses, princes and princesses.  Right here in America, the very thing our founders and forefathers came here to escape, the thing they said would never be again.

I recommend printing the piece up (there’s a little red box in the upper right hand corner of the article, under the picture) and then reading it in parts, until you reach the end. (You can also underline particularly exciting passages that way!)  It’s so crammed full of information and observations it deserves one’s full attention.  Here’s the link again:  “America’s Ruling Class and the Perils of Revolution.”

Prepare to be blown away by how so many things fall into place.

Arizona’s SB 1070

5 Replies

In a week Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070 will go into effect. That’s the bill that’s come to national attention, requiring police officers to ask people they’ve stopped for some other offense to show proof of US citizenship, given, of course, that said officers have sufficient justification for suspecting they might not be citizens. Another Arizona law forbids officers from ever using profiling, so that’s really not the issue here, even though SB 1070 also guards against profiling being used.

 (I have my own issues with the whole ban on profiling thing because frankly it doesn’t make sense. If you have a flood of illegal Mexican nationals pouring over the border, why would you stop a car full of blue-eyed, blond-haired Scandinavians? If the overwhelming preponderance of terrorist acts have been committed by those of middle eastern descent, why would  you not look first to people of middle eastern descent for your suspects? Why would you deliberately turn aside from those of the same ethnicity, just because you don’t want to “profile”. It’s ludicrous.)

But back to AZ SP 1070, and the ridiculous circus that has erupted around it. Do we need it? I think we do. Everyone I talk to here thinks we do. I have friends who work in the hospitals who can testify to the resources diverted to people who are not here legally (and hence pay no taxes, but do get free services).   Emergency rooms are overwhelmed with people who cannot pay for their treatment but must, by law be treated anyway. Physicians, if they wish to use the hospital to treat their paying patients, must donate a particular amount of their time to working basically for free in order to service people who have entered the state illegally. Many of them leave the state, altogether. One group banded together to build a new, private hospital to avoid the forced free service the other hospitals demand. One trauma unit closed because it could not afford to keep operating, drained by the influx of non-paying, illegal alien patients.

My husband has encountered illegals hiding out in the bushes on his hunting trips. He has friends who tell alarming stories of their own encounters in the wilds. One was in his a tree stand, bow hunting in one of Stu’s favorite areas south of Tucson, when a group of drug runners came by, armed with AK-47s. They walked right under his tree, while he held dead still, All too aware that with only his compound bow to protect him against AK-47’s he had the very short end of the stick.

Thankfully the drug runners appeared to ignore him until the guy who followed up the rear stopped right under his tree to look up at him, deliberately making eye contact. He held gaze with the hunter for a bit, then moved on. As soon as they were completely gone, my husband’s friend lit out as fast as he could back to his vehicle. He won’t hunt down there any more. Neither will my husband.

We have friends who have illegals walking through their property on a regular basis. Recently a rancher was killed by illegals down in Douglas. Across the street in our middle class neighborhood, about ten years ago, the man of the house was murdered by Mexican hit men. He was subsequently found to be involved in the drug trade. Our crime rate is pretty high and much of it involves the same drug trade from south of the border.

A couple of years ago, the local news ran a story about the way illegals were coming up through the San Pedro Riparian Conservation area east and south of Tucson, and trashing it up horribly — plastic milk bottles, soiled diapers, feces, etc. Recently an email went around about it, which I didn’t save, and then when I wanted to find it for this post, though I searched the web… I failed to locate it. I did find some photos from another site, not far south of Tucson.

The caption accompanying the photo at left said it is estimated that over 5,000 discarded backpacks are in this wash, as well as countless water containers, food wrappers, clothing, feces, and “thousands” of soiled baby diapers.

I understand the need these people feel to escape their own desperately dysfunctional country. But resorting to illegal entry just isn’t the answer. We don’t have the resources to provide for all of them (schools, buses, medical, welfare in some cases), they take jobs that US citizens would otherwise have, especially in the difficult economic times we are in, they take money but pay no taxes and send much of it back to Mexico, instead of contributing to our economy. Some would argue that others come up from Mexico to shop, but I’m not sure it evens out, and regardless, it’s still illegal.

It’s also not fair to those who have entered this country legally — paid the fees, jumped through all the hoops, waited patiently, learned English, learned about the government… And many of them are no happier about our porous borders than the rest of us.

If you can’t secure your borders, if you let whoever across who wants to come, even aside from issues of allowing criminals and terrorists in unhindered, the fact is that in practice you have no borders. And without borders, you can’t have a nation. Especially if you are a nation that provides a lot of “free” services for people “in need.”

Jesus said “The poor you will have with you always,” and though He performed miracles of healing, and fed thousands of people with free bread and fish… He didn’t do much of anything to alleviate poverty. And however many He healed, there were many more He didn’t heal. He didn’t come to perform physical healings, those where just a metaphor for what He did come to do: die for the sins of the world. The miracles also got people’s attention and testified that He really was from God.

Sometimes, as with the Prodigal Son, people need to suffer lack, to be brought to the end of themselves to “come to their senses” and realize their need for God. That’s not to say we don’t help when we can and when the situation warrants, but the situation doesn’t always warrant and we are simply not responsible for the rest of the world. If you kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, you get no more golden eggs…

Well, Hello!

Leave a reply

I apologize for being so inconsistent over the last few weeks — Months? Well, maybe, but it’s been worse the last few weeks.  Ever since June ended. I guess there’s been a lot going on, with fourth of July, and then the cataract surgery and this weekend my son and his wife were here. They stayed with her grandparents, but that sure didn’t short us on seeing them. The weekend was full.

And of course, I’ve been trying to write more. That’s been inconsistent, as well. And, as I alluded to in a previous post, since about the first week in July, the heat has been more debilitating than it’s ever been for me. The other night I did some research on whether just being hot can make you tired. Turns out it can, (even if you’re not an introvert! LOL) especially if you combine the heat with high humidity. We’re there.

Since about the ninth of July, the humidity has gone up and the dew point’s in the 60s.  But we aren’t getting any rain. Areas around us are getting rain, but we’re not. So there’s nothing to reduce the heat. I can hardly do anything without getting suddenly and intensely hot. Maybe it’s a hot flash, which can be triggered by being hot, but whatever it is, even standing over a pile of card making papers in the bedroom (out of the flow of the swamp cooler’s air) sorting through them, I have hardly begun before I am dripping sweat and so hot I feel like I ‘m going to fall over. So off to a “cooler” spot I go — chair in the dining room, couch in the living room, a spot in the office — to sit in the breeze and drink ice water until I cool off.

I suppose I sort of knew this already, but it’s true that being hot can drain you because the body uses up a lot of energy trying to cool itself down. Since its main method is evaporation of sweat on the skin, in humid environments, the sweat, while evaporating immediately re-condenses, adding back the heat that was just used up. Blood vessels dilate, water moving processes increase, and metabolism slows down  to reduce the internal heat (one of the reasons, according to what I read, why you don’t want to eat as much). And if you add in any physical activity, like vacuuming, well then you are jacking up that internal heat with your efforts.

So today I thought, why fight it? I’ll use the time to do some reading, which is what I’ve already been doing, (when not running errands or administering eyedrops — that ended last week, thank goodness) but guiltily, since I thought I should be doing other things.

The reading is another reason for my silence because the very interesting books I’ve devoured prompted so many thoughts I couldn’t seem to order them enough to write them down. And we’ve had to walk Quigley later, so that cuts into time I used to do blogging.

Anyway, I hope to be more consistent here without any major events currently before me. I particularly want to go back to the introvert stuff and also talk about the more recent books , two of which I got from the Library and then decided to buy.

But now, sitting here at my desk, I’m suddenly all sweating and HOT again, so I shall stop this and return to my spot on the couch to read the very long article I just printed off from American Spectator on Rush Limbaugh’s recommendation. It’s  something that elaborates on a subject I’ve blogged about before — the class conflict that exists in our country between the ruling elites and the “rubes” in flyover country. It’s called America’s Ruling Class — And the Perils of Revolution. It’s a long article and I’ve printed it up to read.

Rush had a lot to say about it today (Monday) so if you’re interested in a summary version, you can find that here. For awhile, anyway.

Sharia or the Constitution?

3 Replies

Under Muslim Sharia law, one cannot proselytize to a Muslim, nor is a Muslim allowed to leave the faith. Recently the Associated Press reported that  4 Christian evangelists were arrested in heavily Arab Dearborn, Michigan, for passing out copies of the Gospel of John (translated into Arabic) at  an entrance/exit to an Arab Cultural festival. (In the video below it appears to be more like a county fair or carnival, a ferris wheel looming in the background). 

The head evangelist George Saieg, only the day before had received a favorable ruling in his behalf, overturning a lower courts findings and allowing him to distribute the books on the festival’s perimeter.

But since the festival typically draws several hundred thousand attendees, police made the arrests to preserve the peace.

I suppose they would get in trouble if they couldn’t keep people from rioting, nevertheless, if people are not able to peacefully distribute Gospel literature (or even Watchtowers, for that matter) in public places for fear of some religious group rioting… that is not good. That means, essentially,  that it’s Sharia law that is in force and not the United States Constitution, which most certainly does allow proselytizing and other freedoms of speech. 

Here’s the video they made of it, just to let other people know what sorts of things are starting to happen right here on American soil (much like the recent  incident with the students who were sent home for wearing American flag shirts on Cinco de Mayo because many of the hispanic students at the school were offended and school officials feared a riot might start…) 

Is the U.S. Headed for Tyranny?

4 Replies

Nowhere in the constitution does it say the government may confiscate private property without due process of law. Yet that’s exactly what’s happened with BP.  Our government is supposed to be representative, people in positions of leadership either elected or confirmed/approved by the congress. Right now we have something like 45 “czars,” non elected, appointed but not approved or confirmed persons in positions of authority where they shouldn’t be.  (You know — like in czarist Russia? I don’t see how anyone would think “czar” would be an acceptable term for any position associated with the United States Government, but that’s another matter) And it’s more than just that the constitution has been violated, it’s that the present administration is wreaking perhaps irreparable damage on our country, taking it out of the realm of being a nation governed by law and into that of being governed by a king. Or dictator. Or a tyrant.

 Thomas Sowell is a professor of economics and a Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow with The Hoover Institution at Stanford University. I’ve long read Professor Sowell’s column’s and always find them insightful. His  most recent piece appearing in Investor’s Business Daily’s online organ Investors.com is entitled Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny? Clear and to the point, it draws some very interesting parallels between what happened in Germany back in the early part of the twentieth century and what’s happening here, now. It’s not long, but worth the read. Here’s how it starts.

“When Adolf Hitler was building up the Nazi movement in the 1920s, leading up to his taking power in the 1930s, he deliberately sought to activate people who did not normally pay much attention to politics.

Such people were a valuable addition to his political base, since they were particularly susceptible to Hitler’s rhetoric and had far less basis for questioning his assumptions or his conclusions.

“Useful idiots” was the term supposedly coined by V.I. Lenin to describe similarly unthinking supporters of his dictatorship in the Soviet Union.

Put differently, a democracy needs informed citizens if it is to thrive, or ultimately even survive

Read MORE…”

We Con the World Revisited

1 Reply

Remember the You Tube video I posted last week from the Flotilla Choir singing “We Con The World?” Well, seems it went viral since last Thursday when it was posted. Power Line blog, where I found it, says it’s already had over 3,000,000 views. So naturally, YouTube has pulled it. Apparently YouTube has a history of pulling things positive to Israel. Though Werner-Chapelle who owns the copyright to the hit fund-raising song “We Are the World” the choir used for their parody, and has claimed they’re in violation of copyright, many think this is not really the issue.

As an aside, I’ve always thought that song (ie, the original) was too dumb to listen to. I couldn’t stand the words and always left or turned the channel before I heard much of it. So it wasn’t until I found the Flotilla Choir parody that I actually heard the tune, which has been a true earworm for me… listen to the thing once and I’ve got the tune running through my head for the rest of the day. And maybe the next, too. It doesn’t help that the new lyrics crack me up. Particularly after I went and looked at the original lyrics.

I much prefer “We’re waving our own knives” to “We’re changing our own lives.” What an idiotic concept! But I’ll desist from my commentary on that, since this isn’t about that, but rather people trying to shut down Jewish voices.

Because apparently  under the fair use doctrine US Copyright law does allow use of a tune for the purposes of parody.  And in fact, there are allegedly several other parodies (including one on Barak Obama) using the same tune still up on YouTube. Caroline Glick, who is editor-in-chief of Latma TV and also contributing editor to the Jerusalem Post, discusses it on her blog here.

Today it’s gone to a new host, Daily Motion. So if you want to enjoy it again… click here.

Irony of the Veil

4 Replies

I woke up this morning thinking about the message in the song performed by the Flotilla Choir, all the lies flying around about the “peace activists” being peaceful, the Israeli’s being brutal, and so forth. The truth is obvious to anyone who wants to see it, but as Prime Minister Netanyahu pointed out recently, many, many people — practically the whole world, don’t want to see that. They jump on the bandwagon that “Israel is guilty until Israel is proven guilty” with eagerness and great conviction. Don’t bother us with the facts. We have no need of them.

The irony in it is that this same attitude was practiced by the Pharisees of Jesus’s day with regard to His position as their prophesied Messiah. He did miracles, He taught with authority, using the Scriptures, He argued them into silence because they had no words with which to respond. He fulfilled something like 600 prophesies of the coming Messiah, and yet they, the most knowledgeable of all the Jews when it came to the Scriptures, didn’t see it. Instead of going to those Scriptures and looking at the prophecies and how the elements of His life and person matched up, they preferred to accuse Him, test Him, argue with Him, insult Him, discredit Him, and ultimately kill Him. When He told them the truth, they became enraged. When people said they thought he was the Prophet, they’d fixate on one element — “Surely the Christ is not going to come from Galilee, is He? Has not the Scripture said that the Christ comes from the offspring of David and from Bethlehem, the village where David was?” (Jn 7:41,42)

How hard could it have been to find out that He had indeed been born in Bethlehem (Micah 5?2), and gone to Egypt and been called out of it (Hos 11:1) and now from Nazareth, a Nazarene (Is 11:1 branch = Naytser) These are the scripture experts, the ones who supposedly had memorized the whole thing down to the least jot and tittle.

But they refused to see. The Word says they had a veil over their eyes — the veil of negative volition. (2 Co 3:14)

And even as they were not interested in facts, only in believing their own lies in those days, so they are now. I recently read a fascinating book called Why Are Jews Liberals? by Norman Podhoretz, who is editor of the conservative political magazine Commentary. In the book, Podhoretz poses the question of why, despite the fact that the Conservatives are now unquestionably the side of the political spectrum that most faithfully and even adamantly supports the Jews and Israel, the Jews themselves remain steadfastly liberal. Refusing to see the Anti-Semitism of the left, they dismiss it with the idea that the liberals don’t mean it, or in the case of antagonism toward the state of Israel (which not all of them support), by agreeing with Israel’s critics.

The very first thing Podhoretz brings out is that the main reason Jews aren’t Conservative is because they are terrified of Christians. Terrified that should they ever come to power that they will forge a new state church that will begin anew all the persecutions the Jews have endured over the last two thousand years and only recently escaped. Even though it was socialist/Nazi Germany and communist Soviet Union though administered the greatest attacks against the Jews in history. And were the most recent to do so.

I’m not saying that Christianity as an institution (as a religion, really — and I don’t believe that true Christianity IS a religion) hasn’t had its dark days with regard to how it’s treated the Jews, but nothing it did was ever so dark as what went down under those two “liberal” or “progressive” regimes in Europe.

The book traces the fascinating if necessarily brief story of the Jew’s history in Western Europe and the US, because that history is definitely part of their reasoning for siding against Christians. But history isn’t all of it. Many of the Liberal Jews have the same unreasoning, illogical, irrational, hard-hearted antagonism toward  Christianity as their Muslim/Arab enemies have toward them.

And I find that ironic.

More on the book tomorrow (If I get back from my mother’s cancer treatments with a reasonable amount of time left in my day… unlike last week)

Those Troublesome Jews

Leave a reply

Really cool opinion piece by Charles Krauthammer (I really like his writings) in the Washington Post on the world’s viewpoint of  Those Troublesome Jews. Why won’t they just go back to Germany, Poland… Auschwitz (quotes from White House Press Queen Helen Thomas and Turkish Flotilla Passengers) ?  It’s not a long article, really clarifies what’s going on with respect to the Gaza situation and these alleged aid flotillas, and discusses the Jew’s three avenues of defense (Forward, Active and Passive) which have systematically been eroded to the point they are left only with the Passive (blockades). Once that, too, is de-legitimized by the world, they will have to just “curse God and die!” (to quote Job’s wife). Just what Satan wants. Because if there’s no Israel, then God can’t keep His promises and Satan has won the Angelic Conflict (Or so he thinks).

One more sign we truly are living in the last days…